- Trish Hamilton
- Danville, CA
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Modify the U.S. Constitution to include "for citizens."
The U.S. Constitution should be updated to include "for all citizens" in the first paragraph whereby the rights of the citizens are protected. No other country guarantees our rights when we go there. Why should we allow others who manage to get into America to have the same rights as the citizens? Do they pay taxes?
The world has changed. It is now time to close our borders and unite as Americans. Until the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is updated to state that only "citizen" rights are protected, then we will continue to have problems. We shouldn't be providing a safe harbor for anyone who gets in. We've lost control of America. We've lost control of our government. We've lost control of our education system. We've lost control of our health care system.
Why are we allowing terrorists to have the same rights as American citizens?! I mean, we are ACTUALLY trying terrorists in our court systems! This is treasonous! I love my country! I support our military! This is wrong!
America, we need to unite as a people. We need to come together. Updating the U.S. Constitution would be the first step in ensuring the survival of capitalism and America.
Efrain Torres
Dale Retter
Debra Smith 200+
Morton Bast 200+
Justin Burton
Barry Palmer 50+
Please note the wording of the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall
any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived
of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note the use of "person" rather than citizen. Our founding fathers chose this word carefully based on the concept that our rights are human rights; that all humans have these rights, regardless of their citizenship. Unfortunately their wisdom is not shared by our current career politicians, or by you.
Robert Winner 50+
The Constitution allows for the Federal to engage in four areas and all other powers and decisions were to be administered by the several states. In writings the representatives were volunteers to serve and then return to their states and new representatives come forth. We have allowed the members of congress to become career politicians who have voted themselves priviledges, pay raises, and exemption from the very laws they confer on the citizens thus making them a ruling class.
We now face Executive Orders that by pass Congress. That was never the intent of the Constitution. The power plays we are seeing are politics in the truest form. To by pass Congress and make citizens outside of the federal mandates required is to secure voters to ensure party dominance.
The most fundamental right is that of the vote and we still maintain that. What is being spoke of is anarchy and that is not the way. The proper way is the return to a Constitutional government and stop the runaway train toward socialism.
All the best. Bob.
Paul Pie
dean crawford
Lejan . 30+
quote: 'Why are we allowing terrorists to have the same rights as American citizens?'
Oh, I must have got something wrong, I thought this was already solved by Guantanamo Bay ...
Debra Smith 200+
Robert Winner 50+
I find it very funny that the Supreme Court votes Constitutional issues along party lines. That makes our founding fathers really smart to write a document that would withstand time and align with parties that did not even exist at the time. Awsome.
See long answer above. Sippin tea with me and Bobby Magee ... LOL
All the best Bob.
Debra Smith 200+
I wonder if you know that there used to be a tea ad in Canada where prominent Brits (like the queen) would sip a cup of tea and discover that it was only available in Canada" The tag line was :"Only in Canada, you say?"
The great news and the downside is that most of what we discuss effects us both North America wide. I do love the States and its people. Why do you think I spend so much time on TED? In fact, I am convinced that much of what your founding fathers wrote (with due respect to the French with whom many of those thoughts started) is the pinacle of human political thought even today.
Yes, that is the legacy and the horror of it all.
I did not ever really see lying as something a tea partier would vote to protect. Can you expand on your answer so that I can understand it better, Bob?
Finally, I do live in Niagara Falls Canada but I raised my kids and lived my married life in "the prettiest town in Canada" that is Niagara-on-the-Lake. I moved here to be in my daughter's school district after the divorce so that she could continue her bilingual education. Now I have a house and my daughter goes to school in Quebec.
IN closing this answer out, I want you to know how very much I appreciate you and most of the Americans I have met. My former sister in law and her children are people I still love but you sure do have wonkie ideas sometimes!
Robert Winner 50+
"Wonkie". Would the be Willie Wonkie and the chocolate factory.
What was the name of the "only in Canada tea"?
Your a tea lovin AMERINADAN.
All the best. Bob.
Debra Smith 200+
Still hoping for that expansion along with the answers to my questions.
PS I adore Abraham Lincoln too but JP Morgan and some others - not so much and neither did Lincoln.
Robert Winner 50+
I don't kinow where I made the lying statement. Help me to find it and I will respond.
Bob.
Debra Smith 200+
"I find it very funny that the Supreme Court votes Constitutional issues along party lines. That makes our founding fathers really smart to write a document that would withstand time and align with parties that did not even exist at the time"
Are you sugggesting that they were clairvoyant? I agree that sometbing very special happened when those guys were writing those documents. Do you think it was simply a convergence of intelligent minds, the educational system of that time or something else?. I would be fascinated to read what you think. I still do also wish to know if you are well.
Robert Winner 50+
Any way thanks for the reply. I am braced for the Ameridain libber to assult the guy that is always right. LOL. See ya. Bob.
Debra Smith 200+
The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a federal law that makes it a crime to lie about receiving a military medal, ruling it violated constitutional free-speech rights.
By a 6-3 vote, in a case about how far the government may go to prosecute false claims about military honors, the high court handed a setback to the Obama administration over the "Stolen Valor Act" that Congress adopted in 2006.
"The nation well knows that one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court's main opinion, speaking for himself and three other justices.
While statements by a California man falsely claiming he had received the congressional Medal of Honor were "contemptible," Kennedy said the right to make those statements was protected by the constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression.
The ruling rejected the administration's argument that the military medal law was constitutional and that the government has a strong interest in protecting the integrity of awards to war heroes.
Opponents said the law swept too broadly, suppressed speech and covered innocent bragging, satire and even false statements that cause no harm such as those at issue in the case by a serial liar who held local political office in California.
The military medal law targeted people who falsely claimed, verbally or in writing, that they had received such an award. Violators could have faced up to six months in prison, or up to one year for elite awards, including the Medal of Honor.
The ruling was a victory for Xavier Alvarez, who was elected to a California water board in Pomona and at a 2007 board meeting had introduced himself as a retired Marine who won the country's highest military decoration.
Alvarez never received Medal of Honor and never served in the m
Robert Winner 50+
As a retired military member I think those who lie about military honors have no honor and need to be shot ... but I am soft on the subject. However, telling a lie is not a felony and I agree with the court that the Feds are out of line here. If they are serving in the military and wear a non earned medal then it is a offense covered by the UCMJ and they should be punished accordingly by the military.
If we punished all politicians that told lies to their constituates then the prison industry would be thriving. There are white lies, grey lies, and damn lies. None punishable.by law.
Perhaps the answer is to have each canidate fill out a bio and sign it stating it is true and the punishment for lying on the bio being disqualification from the race.
Wish I had a great answer but I don't. It do make me PO'd. Gloves off ... hammer down.
All the best. Bob.
Debra Smith 200+
peter lindsay 30+
peter lindsay 30+
Debra Smith 200+
I think this is what is happening in our time. Thoughts, Bob or anyone?
V Alexander
Debra Smith 200+
I am delighted when anyone who previously neglected their right to vote is stirred to action. For me it means that they relearned some of the power and control over their own lives rather than succoming to 'learned helplessness". The only way to defeat 'leared helplessness' is to just take back the power that was taken from you and apply yourself to the problem. The past is behind and the future is brighter.
The way you framed your experience demonstrates a sort of morality tale for the country. Good for you V. Alexander!
V Alexander
Not to butt in anywhere, but saw this and just had to pluck it out of context: "... In short, laws such a[s] the SVA only succeed in circumventing our traditional Republican values." :)
Debra Smith 200+